You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘learning 2.0’ tag.
Outliers, Gladwell’s 2008 book (and I have not read his earlier work yet), is something that I started on yesterday. It has caught my attention from page one. Gladwell wants us to
…appreciate the idea that values of the world we inhabit and the people we surround ourselves with have a profound effect on who we are.
Gladwell explores success (“Why do some people achieve so much more than others? Can they lie so far outside the ordinary? What is the secret of their success?”). These questions directly attack our notions of talent and expertise. And in many ways bring out the effect systemic decisions may have on development of this talent and expertise – somewhat chaotic, sensitive to initial conditions.
In his chapter on the “Matthew Effect” (Matthew 25:29; term coined by sociologist Robert Merton), Gladwell does an interesting analysis. He took the birth months of junior hockey league players in Canada and found that most of them were born between the first three months of the year. Having found this, he went on to study other such teams, the US non-school Baseball league, European soccer, the Czech National Junior soccer team and the studies by economists Kelly Bedard and Elizabeth Dhuey on the relationships between TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies) scores and birth month. He found similar patterns in the data!
Why? Apparently because, each of these had a system defined cut-off date for eligibility. In the Canadian Junior Hockey leagues, the cut-off date is January 1. So a player reaching the age of 10 on Jan 2, could be playing alongside someone who would reach that age perhaps in December that year – a huge difference at the age of 10, would you say?
Similarly, in TIMSS, among the fourth graders, the children who were the oldest scored at least 4-12 percentile points better than the younger children!
So practically speaking, if you group by “ability” and put older (“more mature”) students in advanced streams where they are given better opportunities to learn, they then have an advantage that is iteratively increased as they move from grade to grade.
Huh! Dubner and Levitt (Freakonomics) would be pretty kicked to see this research 🙂 .
The other aspect is that the kids who were born in the later months got lesser and lesser attention or opportunity (very few Czech soccer players born between July-December, for example), which meant that a large population of students did not make it because of when they were born?
So what does it mean to have innate talent or intelligence then? What it does it mean to be an expert? Gladwell quotes neurologist Daniel Levitin who states:
The emerging picture from these studies is that ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert – in anything. In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, Ice skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, and what have you, this number comes up again and again. Ten thousand hours is equivalent to roughly three hours a day, or twenty hours a week, of practice over ten years. Of course, this doesn’t address why some people don’t seem to get anywhere when they practice, and why some people get more out of their practice sessions than others. but no one has yet found a case in which true world-class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know and achieve true mastery.
(also referred at PBDB).
That’s interesting because, where do you get the opportunity (and where is it systematically denied?) to practice twenty hours a week over 10 years if the analysis is true at all.
Gladwell goes on to look at Bill Joy, the Beatles, Bill Gates and many more. The refrain is that opportunity to succeed is too important a factor to consider in your success. And that, intuitively, strikes more than a single chord in me personally and because of what I have experienced in CCK08.
Open, accessible networks may provide our children what they need to be successful. Their ability to form connections and uncover opportunities for individual learning and growth may result in covering some of the great disparities caused by existing world structures, be they economic, educational, legal or others.
In a previous article, I had discussed the juxtaposition of Bruce Tuckman’s five stages of group formation and evolution on the characteristics of 2.0 learning formations. I think it is relevant, in Week 1, for me to try and assess how we are as a formation in terms of:
- the stages (forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning),
- the characteristics (life cycle – duration and phases, interaction frequency, interaction depth or complexity, extent of formal structures and formation size), and,
- the articulation of a probable formal design methodology/model for learning 2.0 that involves Goals, Time, Measurement, Improvement, Content/Knowledge (which I consider common foundations/elements in any learning situation) in a 2.0 context.
As a formation, we are at the forming stage. Opinions are being expressed (sometime emotional flaming), information overload being negotiated, technology being learnt, some individuals displaying initiative to socialize and some to start intellectual discussions – basically getting to know each other (or profile themselves in relation to the others in the formation) in mostly an open, critical and constructive manner.
We have well defined characteristics for this formation. There is a defined schedule and periodicity of formation interaction. If we look at the interaction frequency and (at least quantitatively) the depth, we have an interesting graph (I omitted one inflamed outlier).
Looks familiar (power law here)? About 50% posts had zero replies. About 48% had between 1-10 replies and the remaining greater than 10 replies.
If you look at the extent of formal structures in the course, there is a formal structure to the learning experience as demonstrated by the schedule of the course. However, Stephen and George are facilitating flow of ideas as experts, rather than imposing a structure to the discussion. Stephen’s daily serves as a informant and guide. The readings set up provide a flexible boundary for the content and discussion. As for the size, we have seen a curious phenomenon. The course itself has a large number of interested learners connecting together, but also creating sub-learning formations (e.g. a Hungarian group [linguistic group]). The sub formations also include, interestingly, people who share a common perspective, level of competence and common types of questions.
There was only a small subset that entered the elluminate sessions, and I would be really keen to take the chat and session transcripts and bring out statistics on interaction and expert guidance seeking, perhaps, also on the extent of chaos (the chat board was chaotic and distracting from the learning experience for me!).
Is there a formal design methodology here? I find that all aspects of what I consider a fundamental part of any learning experience – goals, time, measurement, improvements and content/knowledge – are all components of the way the course has been designed – except that their interpretation in a 2.0 world may be different and that Stephen does not entirely agree.
Hope you found this interesting! As always, I would love to hear any comments!